Sodom found?

[Ferrocyanide]

Story of Sodom and Gomorrah is pretty much stolen from the Greek mythology of Baucis and Philemon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon

That’s interesting. So Zeus is a protector of strangers and other people. He takes his son, Hermes, and his son is also a herald, with him.
This explains why there is Zeus and Hermes (2 dudes). In the Tanakh version, there is no explanation why there are 2 angels.

The good guys (humans) are only 2 while in the Tanakh version, the good guys are 4 (Lot, nameless wife, nameless 2 daughters).
Although, the wife turns back and looks so maybe she is considered bad. Also, the 2 daughters make their father drink wine and get pregnant by him, so maybe the 2 daughters are bad girls.

The population gets killed by a flood.
In the Bible, there is baptism and parts about washing yourself. So water is seen as a cleanser.
The jewish god chooses to destroy the people with fire and sulfur, which seems to be another type of cleanser.

Also, Baucis and Philemon get an ornate temple as a reward.
What does Lot get?

Does the Baucis and Philemon story continue?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nonsense.  It's the usual bait and switch.  

"We're not saying magic Jesus existed, we just want to know if it's based on something historical."

"Okay, it's quite possible that it is based upon something historical."

"Praise Jesus, magic Jesus did exist!  Hallelujah!"

Which would constitute a bad interpretation of available evidence. No argument. There’s no question that the motives of biblical archaeologists are suspect, but that’s not a good reason to dismiss archaeology related to the biblical era.

Boru

Therein lies the trouble.  There is no "biblical era" beyond literary conceit.  The ot is not accurate with respect to history - it's an establishment myth contextualizing then-current events with respect to an imagined past.

---

Story of Sodom and Gomorrah is pretty much stolen from the Greek mythology of Baucis and Philemon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon

That’s interesting. So Zeus is a protector of strangers and other people. He takes his son, Hermes, and his son is also a herald, with him.
This explains why there is Zeus and Hermes (2 dudes). In the Tanakh version, there is no explanation why there are 2 angels.

The good guys (humans) are only 2 while in the Tanakh version, the good guys are 4 (Lot, nameless wife, nameless 2 daughters).
Although, the wife turns back and looks so maybe she is considered bad. Also, the 2 daughters make their father drink wine and get pregnant by him, so maybe the 2 daughters are bad girls.

The population gets killed by a flood.
In the Bible, there is baptism and parts about washing yourself. So water is seen as a cleanser.
The jewish god chooses to destroy the people with fire and sulfur, which seems to be another type of cleanser.

Also, Baucis and Philemon get an ornate temple as a reward.
What does Lot get?

Does the Baucis and Philemon story continue?

I'd be surprised if the similarities continued.  Does the story then go on to explain the existence and lowly origin of a hated competitor repopulating the sites at the time of the stories construction? That's pretty specific to regional power.

[no one]

Just about all fiction has its roots in reality.

Take the biblical flood for instance. There is a good chance there was a flood unlike anything anyone at the time had seen before. And much like dad's fishing story, over time, it becomes extremely exaggerated.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dracula was about filthy eastern european immigrants stealing all the good victorian women with their new wealth and strange sexual practices.

I point this out to explain how a story about a flood might be based on some actual thing..but that thing need not be an actual flood (and certainly wasn't, in the case of the deluge). That story was borrowed to a significant extent..not only was there no global flood there was no flood even remotely close to such a thing in the region, and the story in the ot wasn't written by the inhabitants of that region at any rate. It's the assertion of deed and title, plastered in many ways all over the ot. Not just to all the land, but all of the animals in the land. Jahwist stuff.

[Spongebob]

That "B movie" you refer to is "Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter" and it was most certainly not a B movie.  It had a budget of over $69 million and grossed well over $100 million and was directed by Tim Burton.  What in the world does this film have to do with Biblical stories?

Just to pick a nit, it wasn’t directed by Tim Burton.

Boru

Sorry, meant to say produced by Burton.  My bad.

[Anomalocaris]

Dracula was about filthy eastern european immigrants stealing all the good victorian women with their new wealth and strange sexual practices.

I point this out to explain how a story about a flood might be based on some actual thing..but that thing need not be an actual flood (and certainly wasn't, in the case of the deluge).  That story was borrowed to a significant extent..not only was there no global flood there was no flood even remotely close to such a thing in the region, and the story in the ot wasn't written by the inhabitants of that region at any rate.  It's the assertion of deed and title, plastered in many ways all over the ot.  Not just to all the land, but all of the animals in the land.

An actual global deluge is an impossibility.  But a regional deluge large enough to seem, even to migrating populations of hunter gatherers or members of fairly extensive trading networks,  to affect much of the known world is evidently not.   Vast floods of that scale is geologically well attested to have occurred over a hundred times across different parts of the world during the final 5000 years of recent ice age.   Black Sea in-fill hypothesis seriously and credibly proposes that one particular example of such regional deluge in the Black Sea basin is the actual event at the origin of the widespread flood mythology of the near East which Bible stole and claimed as its own.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its not a reputable theory for the origin of the story in the ot. That's where these analysis always fall flat. To say...hey, here's a big flood, maybe big floods like this are the reason people tell flood stories? They happen all over the world. Why not? This, acknowledging that none of the details of any flood story fit any known flood anywhere at any time, the black sea fill in being no exception.

Maybe so..but that's not the reason they told the flood story in the ot. There's a ton of good research on this both from the literary angle and supporting archaeology. This, in contrast, to the fruitless search for the real events™ that inspired the bible. There were real events, sure - just not the ones in the establishment myth that contextualized them. To my mind, that's one of the most fascinating things about magic book. The reason that biblical archaeology hobbled along for so long, and is still with us. Our early apprehensions of it's historicity were based not solely (or even meaningfully) on faith in the contents or it;s god - but on corroborating debris and sites really found all over the place. On accurate descriptions of things in those sites, and warfare as we found it later in the dirt. Trouble was, it accurately described a time much later in history.

TLDR version, the reason that people told the deluge story in the ot was not because they remembered some ancient flood of any description- it was because it was useful to the organization of their society in the then-present as constructed.

[HappySkeptic]

Fire and brimstone is something more likely associated with a volcanic event, than a meteorite strike.

A meteorite strike or airburst large enough to cause serious destruction is rare - probably at most 1 per 100 years somewhere on the Earth. In a particular area, it would be unknown for millennia. The suggestion that it is happened here is speculation based on multiple lines of evidence.

This paper may have been completely wrong, but, the geological evidence is interesting. I think that destruction myths are often fashioned around a societal memory of something real (and the stories can be borrowed by different cultures). You don't get a flood myth without some societal memory of large floods, even if a true deluge never happened. Likewise you wouldn't get a fire and brimstone myth unless either volcanic or meteoric destruction was something known to happen, at to at least some degree. It doesn't mean that there ever was a city of Sodom, two angels, or a man named Lot.

[Anomalocaris]

Its not a reputable theory for the origin of the story in the ot.  That's where these analysis always fall flat.  To say...hey, here's a big flood, maybe big floods like this are the reason people tell flood stories?  They happen all over the world.  Why not?  This, acknowledging that none of the details of any flood story fit any known flood anywhere at any time, the black sea fill in being no exception.

Maybe so..but that's not the reason they told the flood story in the ot.  There's a ton of good research on this both from the literary angle and supporting archaeology.  This, in contrast, to the fruitless search for the real events™ that inspired the bible.  There were real events, sure - just not the ones in the establishment myth that contextualized them.

Of course it is.  it makes no effort to explain each steps in its subsequent evolution, hybridization, inbreeding, out breeding and mutation along the line of decent to the OT fable.   It attempt to detect genetic markers in the OT fable, so to speak, that may point to some discernible factual occurrences during that long path of descent, such as association with very broadly similar flood myths shared with several earlier cultures in the near East, and a yet earlier actual geological event which would have left at least impressions style memories of a dooms day flood across much of that region. 

As to the reason why people tell the story in OT, it should be pointed out that until modern times, people across the world mostly did not share the modern concept of telling storie about things outside their daily lives for the purposes of broadening horizon oh factual knowledge.     Stories are told mainly as malleable props to support a rethorical agenda.

---

Fire and brimstone is something more likely associated with a volcanic event, than a meteorite strike.

A meteorite strike or airburst large enough to cause serious destruction is rare - probably at most 1 per 100 years somewhere on the Earth.  In a particular area, it would be unknown for millennia.  The suggestion that it is happened here is speculation based on multiple lines of evidence.

This paper may have been completely wrong, but, the geological evidence is interesting.  I think that destruction myths are often fashioned around a societal memory of something real (and the stories can be borrowed by different cultures).  You don't get a flood myth without some societal memory of large floods, even if a true deluge never happened.  Likewise you wouldn't get a fire and brimstone myth unless either volcanic or meteoric destruction was something known to happen, at to at least some degree.  It doesn't mean that there ever was a city of Sodom, two angels, or a man named Lot.

i think before any city has been smitten by a bolide air burst, a hundred would have been smitten by the fire and brimstone of volcanos.

For each city that volcanos smote, a hundred more would have smitten by the artificial fire and brimstone manufactured by invading armies or violent social upheavals.

So the origin of sodom story is primarily a man made event should seem to me to be the default assumption.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its not a reputable theory for the origin of the story in the ot.  That's where these analysis always fall flat.  To say...hey, here's a big flood, maybe big floods like this are the reason people tell flood stories?  They happen all over the world.  Why not?  This, acknowledging that none of the details of any flood story fit any known flood anywhere at any time, the black sea fill in being no exception.

Maybe so..but that's not the reason they told the flood story in the ot.  There's a ton of good research on this both from the literary angle and supporting archaeology.  This, in contrast, to the fruitless search for the real events™ that inspired the bible.  There were real events, sure - just not the ones in the establishment myth that contextualized them.

Of course it is.  it makes no effort to explain each steps in its subsequent evolution, hybridization, inbreeding, out breeding and mutation along the line of decent to the OT fable.   It attempt to detect genetic markers in the OT fable, so to speak, that may point to some discernible factual occurrences during that long path of descent, such as association with very broadly similar flood myths shared with several earlier cultures in the near East, and a yet earlier actual geological event which would have left at least impressions style memories of a dooms day flood across much of that region. 

As to the reason why people tell the story in OT, it should be pointed out that until modern times, people across the world mostly did not share the modern concept of telling storie about things outside their daily lives for the purposes of broadening horizon oh factual knowledge.     Stories are told mainly as malleable props to support a rethorical agenda.

Well, rather than make hay over floods..I'll point out that the current hope of the current paper is not an example of anything like that - but the idea that an airburst hit the town of sodom.  No evolution of anything. That's actually the only reference in the paper to the biblical tale. It even acknowledges that even if their findings are true (which, they may not be) that still would not establish that this is the town of sodom - that the story in magic book is about this.